Tobacco.org

• Cigar politics for Staten Island State Sen. Andrew Lanza 

State Sen. Andrew Lanza's credibility on future anti-tobacco legislation might be up in smoke after a good-government group revealed the Staten Island Republican spent $3,830 in campaign cash over three years on cigars for friends, supporters and constituents, giving renewed credence to that old-time image of cigar-chomping Albany pols in smoked-filled rooms.

In Lanza's case, he said the stogies were doled out as freebies to $250-a-head donors at his annual golf outing fund-raisers at the Richmond County Country Club.

But at least he shopped local: Lanza dropped the big bucks at Carmine's Cigars, Dongan Hills.

The New York Public Interest Research Group found Lanza and other lawmakers statewide have spent $44,919 on tobacco-related products like cigars since 2008.

Lanza defended the practice, telling the Advance that as the son of a cop and homemaker, he didn't have the personal wealth to throw around during campaign season and needed to look for different ways to raise money and thank supporters. . . .

"There is a difference from inhaling a pack or more of cigarettes a day to a couple of cigars a year," said Lanza.

Still, Lanza said he intends to continue to advocate against smoking -- like he did in 2010 when he said he was in favor of banning smoking in cars if there were passengers younger than 14.

"At golf outings," said Lanza, "we're all adults."

Fellow Republican lawmaker Assemblyman Lou Tobacco, who crusades against smoking, side-stepped a question about Lanza's cigar politics.

Jump to full article »

• State lawmakers use cigars to lure in funds 

State lawmakers still love a good cigar — especially when it helps them raise money.

Legislators and other candidates for state offices have spent more than $44,919 on cigars and other-tobacco-related items since 2008, according to a study of campaign records provided to the Daily News by the New York Public Interest Research Group.

The cigars were often used as gifts for fat-cat donors at cash bashes.

“The practice of politicians and donors meeting in smoke-filled rooms is apparently alive and well in New York,” said NYPIRG’s Bill Mahoney.

Republicans were easily the biggest cigar spenders, with more than a half-dozen GOP candidates and campaign organizations spending $500 or more on tobacco-related products.

The tobacco aficionados included Sen. Andrew Lanza (R-Staten Island), who spent more than $3,830 at Carmine’s Cigars on Staten Island during the past three years.

Senate Majority Leader Dean Skelos (R-Nassau County) spent $1,333 at Habana Premium Cigars in Albany. And the Senate Republican Campaign Committee, which Skelos controls, spent more than $6,000 at the same shop.

Jump to full article »

• Big Tobacco backs Australian law opposers ($$) 

- FT.com PMI said the company was openly supporting governments that challenged Australia on plain packaging.

“We have been in contact with many of these countries, including on the trade and legal issues associated with the [plain packaging] policy,” it said. “It is commonplace for affected industries to support countries in WTO disputes and we are open to supporting governments that challenge Australia on plain packaging.”

BAT said the company was happy to provide legal support to member states, but it was “up to them” to accept it.

However, the news drew a sharp response from anti-tobacco campaigners.

“It is very concerning that tobacco companies are using legal action as a delaying tactic against a government that is trying to protect the health of its citizens,” said Robin Hewings, tobacco control manager for Cancer Research UK.

Deborah Arnott, chief executive of the London-based Action on Smoking and Health, accused the tobacco companies of “getting others to do their dirty work”.

Jump to full article »

• Tobacco industry gearing up to take down California cigarette tax initiative 

In what is quickly turning into another high-stakes policy battle to be decided by California voters, tobacco giants Philip Morris and R.J. Reynolds are forking over tens of millions of dollars to defeat a new tobacco tax on the June ballot.

Proposition 29, which would boost taxes by $1 a pack of cigarettes to $1.87, would raise about $735 million annually, most of which would go toward cancer research.

It would also mean a $1 billion annual loss in California sales to the tobacco industry because the extra buck a pack will cause more people to quit smoking or not start in the first place, experts say. But tobacco companies plan to keep a low profile during the no-on-29 campaign, hoping their anti-tax allies can win the battle for them by appealing to anti-tax sentiments -- rather than trying to garner sympathy for an unpopular industry.

"I don't think it's a secret that tobacco is funding this," said Joel Fox, president of the Small Business Action Committee and a member of the coalition opposing Proposition 29, Californians Against Out of Control Taxes and Spending. "But if the tobacco folks are out there, everybody wants to say the evil tobacco companies are behind this. But there are important policy issues that have to be discussed, and it's not surprising that taxpayer groups are out front talking about this."

What does the tobacco industry have to say?

Apparently nothing. When this newspaper asked the no-on-29 campaign for a tobacco industry representative to give the industry's take on the issue, the anti-tax coalition wouldn't provide one.

Jump to full article »

IRS Whistleblower Letter on ALEC  

Submission to the Internal Revenue Service under the Tax Whistleblower Act, 26 U.S.c. § 7623(b) regarding underreporting of lobbying and operation in furtherance of private corporate interests in contravention of 26 U.S.c. § 501(c)(3) tax-exempt charitable status . . .

INTRODUCTION

This submission is made pursuant to the whistleblower provisions of 26 U.S.C. 7623 et seq. (the "Tax Whistleblower Act"). This matter concerns the massive underreporting of lobbying by the American Legislative Exchange Council ("ALEC"). While ostensibly a nonprofit organization under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, ALEC's primary purpose is to provide a vehicle for its corporate members to lobby state legislators and to deduct the costs of such efforts as charitable contributions. ALEC drafts "model" legislation provided by its corporate and legislative members, and lobbies for the adoption of that legislation. These goals are fundamentally inconsistent with ALEC's claimed tax-exempt status as a charitable organization under 26 U.S.C. § 501(c)(3), because (i) "no substantial part" of a charity's activity can be "attempting to influence legislation," and (ii) ALEC's activities do not qualify under any of the enumerated purposes of Section 501(c)(3).

This scheme causes harm to taxpayers in two distinct ways. First, ALEC's activities constitute an abuse of its 501(c)(3) tax exemption, which is reserved for organizations "operated exclusively " for a limited number of purposes, such as "religious, charitable, scientific ... or educational purposes ...." 26 U.S.C. § 501(c)(3). Second, ALEC's corporate members improperly deduct from their taxable income the dues and other contributions made to ALEC; such expenditures are non-deductible lobbying expenses under Section 162(e). In fact, because ALEC solicits very few contributions from individuals, its false claims of tax-exempt status appear driven by the desire of ALEC corporate members to deduct lobbying expenses as charitable contributions. . . .

Conferences are attended by both ALEC's public and private sector members. The agenda consists of large plenary sessions, Task Force meetings, evening events and receptions. Private sector members co-organize numerous sponsored events with ALEC staff, including the National Rifle Association's annual clay pigeon shooting event. Other events at the 2011 ALEC Annual Meeting included a Cigar Reception sponsored by Reynolds Tobacco and the Cigar Association of America, and an evening of dancing with food and refreshments sponsored by Cox. [Exhibit 17] These events are promoted ahead of the conference by ALEC staff via email to legislators. It is likely that the corporations that pay for such lavish lobbying junkets deduct the expenses as charitable contributions to a 501(c)(3) organization.

Jump to full article »

• ALEC attacks shareholders  

Should shareholders have a say in how much money corporations give to candidates, super PACs and dark money groups? The American Legislative Exchange Committee, or ALEC, doesn’t think so.

ALEC is best known for giving moneyed special interests a hand in crafting “model legislation,” including the NRA-backed “stand your ground” laws that have touched off a furor in the wake of the Trayvon Martin shooting. But a trove of internal documents obtained by the advocacy group Common Cause shows that the group’s activities are far more varied than was previously known; it does everything from issuing boilerplate press releases to flagging how lawmakers should vote on given pieces of legislation.

It also lobbies actively to scuttle shareholders’ rights – specifically to limit their ability to weigh in on political giving. Last year, for instance, New York state lawmakers introduced a pair of bills requiring corporations to get shareholder approval before making donations to politicians or outside groups, such as super PACs. Backers argue the measure would provide crucial safeguards for investors. “Giving shareholders a voice ensures that their money isn’t used for political purposes they don’t agree with or that are detrimental to the corporation,” explains Adam Skaggs, a senior counsel with the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University law school.

Jump to full article »

• Big Tobacco Spends Big On Ads Against Tobacco Tax 

If you haven't yet seen a commercial featuring a doctor dressed in doctor's garb urging you to vote 'no' on Prop 29, a $1.00 tax on cigarettes and other tobacco products, then you will. If you watch any amount of television, you will.

The group Californians Against Out of Control Spending/Taxing has spent nearly $900,000 on tv ads on local stations; KUSI, CBS, NBC, and the three major cable providers; Cox, DirecTV, and AT&T.

"I'm against smoking," the woman says inside a doctor's examination room. "So, I thought Prop 29 was a good idea. It raises $735 million dollars in tobacco taxes but not one penny goes to new funding for cancer treatment. Instead, it creates a huge new research bureaucracy with no accountability, run by political appointees who can spend our tax dollars in other states."

The group is funded by tobacco giants Phillip Morris, RJ Reynolds, and affiliated companies Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company, and the American Snuff Company. According to campaign finance records available on the California Secretary of State website, the group raised $12,088,658.65 in contributions from January 1 to March 17. So far, it has spent $7,945,264 with $4,531,467 in the bank.

Jump to full article »

• GLANTZ: Prop 29 opponents California Taxpayers Assn and California Hispanic Chambers of Commerce have financial ties to Philip Morris  

The California Taxpayers Association (CalTax) and the California Hispanic Chambers of Commerce, which signed the "No on 29" ballot arguments have long histories of working with the cigarette companies, including "donations" from Philip Morris over the years.

You can see the documents in the Legacy Tobacco Documents Library on them by clicking on these links for CalTax and California Hispanic Chambers of Commerce.

Without much looking, I found payments totaling $30,000 to CalTax from Philip Morris in 2000 and 2001 and totaling $35,000 to the California Hispanic Chambers of Commerce in 1998 and 1999. My guess is with a little more looking one could find lots more.

Jump to full article »

• PEARSON: Big Tobacco wins again 

A few weeks ago on this page, I wondered whether or not the "love fest" between Oklahoma lawmakers and the tobacco industry would continue this session.

Well, we have an answer: YES! Even in the face of close scrutiny and harsh criticism, a Senate committee has seen to it that cities in Oklahoma will not be able to enact stronger tobacco controls than allowed by state law. That means the tobacco industry can continue to concentrate all its plentiful lobbying resources in one place - the state Legislature - rather than have to deal with dozens of local governments that might care more about their own constituents than some well-compensated lobbyists. (Goodness knows the industry has the money to spend; according to one estimate, Big Tobacco spends a million dollars an hour to market its products.)

In fairness, there was a chance that the local-control legislation might have passed this year. One version made it out of the House and it's possible the Senate also might have passed a measure. But state Sen. Brian Crain, R-Tulsa, would not let the bill come up in his Health and Human Services Committee. "If we're going to ban smoking, let's debate that issue rather than do it piece by piece," he said. . . .

In summary, the surgeon general concluded that the "establishment of smoke-free public and workplace environments; and statewide, community-wide and school-based programs and policies are effective in reducing the initiation, prevalence and intensity of smoking among youth and young adults."

So in other words, if Oklahoma leaders would pave the way for stronger tobacco-control policies at the local level - which has been done in 48 other states - then there's a very good change lots of Oklahoma teens would never take up the deadly habit, and would live much longer, healthier, happier lives.

Lawmakers still have the ability to resurrect a local-control measure. But rather than look out for the future of Oklahoma's young people, some lawmakers appear to be looking out for the future of the tobacco industry. You have to wonder why.

Jump to full article »

• Cabinet rift throws cigarette censorship plan into chaos as Lansley is branded as a member of the 'health police'  

Cigar-smoking Ken Clarke has mocked Cabinet colleague Andrew Lansley as a member of the 'health police' over his call for cigarettes to be sold in plain packaging only.

Mr Clarke openly suggested the Health Secretary's controversial plans would not stop youngsters taking up the habit.

The Justice Secretary said: 'I am surprised that people think that young boys and others take up smoking because they are attracted by the packet.

'The campaigners claim they've got great evidence for this and my friend Andrew Lansley is obviously completely convinced that they do.'

But Mr Clarke, an ex-director of British American Tobacco, insisted changing public attitudes - not anti-smoking initiatives - had cut cigarette smoking.

Jump to full article »

• PEARSON: Big Tobacco wins again  

Even in the face of close scrutiny and harsh criticism, a Senate committee has seen to it that cities in Oklahoma will not be able to enact stronger tobacco controls than allowed by state law. That means the tobacco industry can continue to concentrate all its plentiful lobbying resources in one place - the state Legislature - rather than have to deal with dozens of local governments that might care more about their own constituents than some well-compensated lobbyists. (Goodness knows the industry has the money to spend; according to one estimate, Big Tobacco spends a million dollars an hour to market its products.) . . .

In summary, the surgeon general concluded that the "establishment of smoke-free public and workplace environments; and statewide, community-wide and school-based programs and policies are effective in reducing the initiation, prevalence and intensity of smoking among youth and young adults."

So in other words, if Oklahoma leaders would pave the way for stronger tobacco-control policies at the local level - which has been done in 48 other states - then there's a very good change lots of Oklahoma teens would never take up the deadly habit, and would live much longer, healthier, happier lives.

Lawmakers still have the ability to resurrect a local-control measure. But rather than look out for the future of Oklahoma's young people, some lawmakers appear to be looking out for the future of the tobacco industry. You have to wonder why.

Jump to full article »

• Dan Morain: Big Tobacco fires up anti-tax effort  

In the coming weeks, Californians once again will witness the industry's formidable power. Cigarette makers Altria and R.J. Reynolds will spend tens of millions of dollars telling us why Proposition 29, the latest attempt by anti-smokers to raise tobacco taxes, is a terrible idea.

In slick television ads, shills will explain how the $735 million that would be raised by the measure annually would be wasted on the creation and operation of a bloated bureaucracy. The industry probably will succeed. It usually does.

Ordinarily, I agree with arguments against initiatives. Proposition 29 on the June 5 ballot has its problems. But my decision is easy any time I have to choose between tobacco companies and cancer researchers, doctors who treat cancer and public health experts who try to prevent cancer.

The industry has "lied, misrepresented and deceived the American public, including smokers and the young people they avidly sought as 'replacement' smokers, about the devastating health effects of smoking and environmental tobacco smoke."

Those words didn't come from some anti-smoking fanatic. U.S. District Judge Gladys Kessler wrote them in 2006. . . .

One prominent opponent of Proposition 29 is Americans for Tax Reform, the nonprofit corporation headed by professional conservative Grover Norquist. Norquist pushes candidates for office to sign pledges vowing to oppose all tax increases – including tobacco tax hikes.

Norquist has a rich history of involvement with the tobacco industry. Industry documents show Americans for Tax Reform received upward of $1 million from cigarette companies between 1995 and 2000.

Patrick Gleason, a Norquist aide, didn't answer my question about whether Americans for Tax Reform still accepts tobacco money. I took that as a yes.

It's a close call whether tobacco is less popular than career politicians. But to tar the initiative, industry spokespeople write in the California voter guide that a "career politician" is promoting Proposition 29. That'd be former Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata.

Jump to full article »

Why Coke and Others Cut Ties with Conservative Group ALEC 

Last week, Coca-Cola, Kraft and accounting-software giant Intuit announced they were ending their membership in a conservative nonprofit group called the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC). The news sent reporters scrambling to explain what exactly the 39-year-old organization does, why it matters and how its role in spreading laws — governing everything from voter ID requirements to anti-illegal-immigration efforts — came to be a problem for some of America’s foremost corporate citizens. . . .

Giants from almost every major American industry comprise the highest echelon of ALEC’s corporate participants. Retail (Walmart), tobacco (R.J. Reynolds, Altria né Philip Morris), pharmaceuticals (GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer, Bayer, Johnson & Johnson), telecommunications (AT&T), beverages (Diageo), oil (Koch Co., ExxonMobil), coal (Peabody Energy), utilities (Energy Future Holdings, Salt River Project), publishing (Reed Elsevier), insurance (State Farm), shipping (UPS) and umbrella lobbying groups like PhRMA and Centerpoint360 are all represented on ALEC’s Private Enterprise Board, which advises the organization on the needs of their industries. Until last week, Coca-Cola and Kraft also had seats on the board. . . .

Founded in 1973 by conservative lawmakers and activists — most notably Paul Weyrich, who also set up the flagship conservative think tank the Heritage Foundation that same year — ALEC was designed to further small-government and private-sector interests at the local level.

Jump to full article »

Cigars and whiskey at Ellmers fund raiser  

• Capitol Alert: Big Tobacco tally: $23 million and counting 

Tobacco companies have ponied up another $8.9 million in their bid to defeat a $1-per-pack cigarette tax on the June ballot, bringing total contributions above $23 million.

Proposition 29 would net $735 million annually for research on cancer and tobacco-related diseases, smoking cessation programs and state efforts to combat tobacco smuggling and tax evasion. The initiative is backed by groups such as the American Lung Association and American Cancer Society, as well as cyclist and cancer survivor Lance Armstrong.

The opposition coalition is largely financed by Philip Morris USA, R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, and their affiliates who make chewing and pipe tobacco.

The No on 29 campaign, which dubs itself Californians Against Out-of-Control Taxes and Spending, has signed up prominent anti-tax groups and attacked the initiative as a tax hike that does not help the state budget or schools.

Jump to full article »